RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
RABINDRA KUMAR MOHANTY
Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Click here to view full judgement.
S.K.Panigrahi, J. -
(1.) The petitioner is an Individual engaged in the business of arrangement of trucks for transportation of materials of different parties. The Assessing Officer, vide assessment order dated 30.06.2014, added Rs. 72,23,004/- towards undisclosed transportation receipt and Rs. 2,23,885/- in the shape of TDS towards excess of assets over liabilities to the total income of the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Bhubaneswar, which vide its order dated 22.2.2016 in I.T. Appeal No.0288/2015-16, partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner herein i.e. it conformed the addition of the undisclosed transportation receipt of Rs. 72,23,004/- to the income while waived of the addition of Rs.2,23,885 in the shape of TDS towards excess of assets over liabilities. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2016 of the CIT (A)-2, Bhubaneswar, the petitioner approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal"), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack vide ITA No. 300/CTK/2016 for the assessment year 2009- 10. The Ld. Tribunal issued notice for hearing on 06.07.2017 and on the said date, the authorised representative of the petitioner filed an adjournment application and the case was placed for hearing on 30.08.2017 accordingly. However, on 30.08.2017 neither the petitioner nor his authorised representative or his counsel were present. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The petitioner preferred an appeal by way of filing W.P.(C) No.2487 of 2019 before this Court even though no restoration application was filed before the Ld. Tribunal.
(2.) The principal question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal, as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.
(3.) Heard Mr. R.P. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned counsel for the opposite party.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.